Subject: [NNTP] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-nntpext-streaming-05

From: "Scott Hollenbeck" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 10:47:19 -0400

Here are my pre-last call evaluation comments for
draft-ietf-nntpext-streaming:

Abstract: an abstract must be able to stand in isolation from the rest of
the spec, so references shouldn't be included.  Please replace [NNTP] with
"(NNTP)" and [NNTP-COMMON] with "RFC 2980".

Section 2.2, third paragraph: "over 95% acceptance may be a reasonable
metric in some configurations".  Please consider using a word other than
"may" in this sentence (and anywhere else 2119 directives are used in
lower-case form) because some people aren't sure if you are using the word
as a 2119 directive or not.  The IESG also appears to be split on this
issue, so I find it best to use synonyms if a directive isn't intended.

Section 7.1: Please consider updating the [ABNF] reference to use
draft-crocker-abnf-rfc2234bis instead of RFC 2234.  The IESG recently
approved draft-crocker-abnf-rfc2234bis to obsolete 2234.  It's in the RFC
Editor queue.

None of these are significant.  I will start the last call.  Please consider
these in the same context as any other comments received during the last
call process.

-Scott-

---

From: "Clive D.W. Feather" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 16:16:50 +0100

> approved draft-crocker-abnf-rfc2234bis to obsolete 2234.  It's in the RFC

Doesn't that risk holding up our publication waiting for it to gain a
number?

Is there a process for this; in effect "change this reference if and only
if the new version gets RFC status before this document"?

-- 
Clive D.W. Feather  | Work:  <[email-masked]>   | Tel:    +44 20 8495 6138
Internet Expert     | Home:  <[email-masked]>  | Fax:    +44 870 051 9937
Demon Internet      | WWW: http://www.davros.org | Mobile: +44 7973 377646
Thus plc            |                            |

---

From: "Scott Hollenbeck" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 11:38:41 -0400

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Clive D.W. Feather [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2005 11:17 AM
> To: Scott Hollenbeck
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [NNTP] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-nntpext-streaming-05
> 
> Scott Hollenbeck said:

rfc2234bis should pop out of the RFC Editor queue before this one does (the
IESG can make that requirement clear to the RFC Editor if need be), so no, I
don't see a risk of delay.  The only "process" to does this without changing
the reference would be to put text in an IESG note to the RFC Editor asking
them to revise the reference if rfc2234bis is available as an RFC before the
WG documents are.  It makes more sense to just tell the RFC Editor to
expedite processing of rfc2234bis.

-Scott-

---

From: Ken Murchison <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 12:26:17 -0400

Scott Hollenbeck wrote:
> WG documents are.

Is there standard boilerplate for this?  Does it belong in a separate 
section, or just as a note within the references?

-- 
Kenneth Murchison     Oceana Matrix Ltd.
Software Engineer     21 Princeton Place
716-662-8973 x26      Orchard Park, NY 14127
--PGP Public Key--    http://www.oceana.com/~ken/ksm.pgp

---

From: Russ Allbery <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 09:39:13 -0700

>> rfc2234bis should pop out of the RFC Editor queue before this one does
>> (the IESG can make that requirement clear to the RFC Editor if need
>> be), so no, I don't see a risk of delay.  The only "process" to does
>> this without changing the reference would be to put text in an IESG
>> note to the RFC Editor asking them to revise the reference if
>> rfc2234bis is available as an RFC before the WG documents are.

> section, or just as a note within the references?

While I'm curious about this too in general, I think this was the
alternative to just citing the rfc2234bis draft directly, which already
triggers a dependency and then a modification of the reference to point to
the RFC when it's published.  When I was reviewing the documents, I
decided that any reference to a draft that went into Last Call or to the
RFC Editor before our documents did was fine, on the presumption that the
publishing process is generally FIFO.  Since this document has already
gone to the RFC Editor, I think it's fine to just cite the draft and let
the magic happen.

I assume the same thing applies to the base document as well?

-- 
Russ Allbery ([email-masked])             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

---

From: "Scott Hollenbeck" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 12:39:21 -0400

> From: Ken Murchison [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2005 12:26 PM
> To: Scott Hollenbeck

Notes to the RFC Editor can be handled as part of IESG review.  There's no
standard text, just whatever we want to tell the RFC Editor.  The text then
appears in the standard approval announcement.  The IESG can also decide
independently to ask the RFC Editor to expedite processing of a particular
document.  If that's what you all want to see happen I can schedule the
topic for discussion at the 9 June telechat.

-Scott-